This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Times =\= Post. You linked to the Washington TIMES. That is a tabloid magazine. Washington Post is acceptable under BN. Again you are confused.

• *BN* - Mainstream Media: A news service whose primary means of distribution is print, broadcast, or wire services. Local newspapers forced to switch to a digital format may aslo be placed here as well as AP stories reposted to the web free of additional commentary.
Examples Include: CNN, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press

What you posted:

Do you now understand that these are different sites??? One extremely reputable and one crazy source?

Uhhh Libya was already in a civil war so it was ok to lie to get the US involved?

No. You claimed "Hilary destabilized a nation". The country was already destabilized and widely divided before the US began strikes.

If its a hack show, surely it will come back to bite the republicans, no?

Not entirely. All the GOP has to do is back away publicly from the issue like they did. In the last Benghazi hearing they quietly came out and pretty much said, "eh nothing here". But its not important to the politics from the issue.

It isn’t. Though it’s been a comparatively lean year for Benghazi news, a core group of right-leaning activists––who seem to represent a sizable chunk of the Republican base––is pushing for a maximally aggressive House investigation into the attacks, and they have an enormous slough of unanswered questions.

Either way, the Benghazi lull won’t last long. In his opening statement at the Dec. 10 House Benghazi committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs it, said the committee will have more hearings in January, February, and March.

This may seem odd. It’s been more than two years since the attacks on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, and in that time, five congressional committees and the State Department’s Accountability Review Board have all released reports on the attack and its causes. But for the most dogged Benghazi theorizers, there are always more questions.

Conservatives’ interest in the Benghazi story varies widely. Heritage Foundation scholar James Carafano (who testified before Congress two months after the attacks) speaks to the concerns of many Republicans—and even a few Democrats. During that testimony, in 2012, Carafano focused on what the attacks can teach us about potential security vulnerabilities at other U.S. outposts.

The Benghazi Accountability Coalition is a group focused on pushing for continued investigations of the attacks. Its members include Allen West, former congressional candidate Dan Bongino, Frank Gaffney––famous for charging that Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood––and Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, as well as Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. According to a statement released on the eve of the Dec. 10 Benghazi hearing, they are unimpressed with the select committee’s progress thus far.

After half a dozen investigations, they still have lots of questions. Where was President Obama on the night of the attacks? (Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wants to know this, too.) They’re also unsatisfied with the explanation of the genesis of the YouTube talking points––on the Sunday shows after the attack, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the attack was the result of a video that had been posted online, which was false––and they’re totally unsatisfied with the House Intelligence Committee’s report, for a panoply of reasons that have found minimal credence in the mainstream press. And there’s the theory—promoted by WorldNetDaily, TownHall, and others—that the CIA was using the Benghazi consulate as an outpost in a gun-running operation for getting weapons to Syrian rebels.

Why? Because they are war hawks. Look at the position of members of congress who are Republicans. Arm Syrian rebels, bomb Syria, arm Ukraine, more drones!, now its bomb Iraq and Syria more, boots on the ground... Remember "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."?

No. You claimed "Hilary destabilized a nation". The country was already destabilized and widely divided before the US began strikes.

Not entirely. All the GOP has to do is back away publicly from the issue like they did. In the last Benghazi hearing they quietly came out and pretty much said, "eh nothing here". But its not important to the politics from the issue.

Why? Because they are war hawks. Look at the position of members of congress who are Republicans. Arm Syrian rebels, bomb Syria, arm Ukraine, more drones!, now its bomb Iraq and Syria more, boots on the ground... Remember "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."?

Last I checked the Arab spring happened on Obama and Hillary's watch. Hillary apparently lied to get us into that conflict-whos the war hawk?